RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the accuracy of D- and F-speed intraoral radiographs and digital and enhanced digital radiographic images for endodontic file length determination. STUDY DESIGN: Size 15 K-files were bonded in 51 canals of 34 human cadaver teeth. The distance from file tip to root apex was measured on D- and F-speed film and on unenhanced and enhanced digital images. The quality of the images was rated by the observers. Overlying cadaver bone and root structure were subsequently removed to expose the file tip for actual measurement to the apex. The distance measured on each image was compared with the actual measurement. ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, sign test, and Pearson correlation statistical analyses were applied. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in measurement accuracy among the 4 image types (P < or = .05). Subjective ratings showed a preference for the quality of enhanced digital images. Conclusion All 4 image types were similar in accuracy of file measurement. The image quality of enhanced digital images was subjectively superior to the others.
Assuntos
Cavidade Pulpar/anatomia & histologia , Cavidade Pulpar/diagnóstico por imagem , Odontometria/métodos , Radiografia Dentária/métodos , Filme para Raios X , Análise de Variância , Dente Pré-Molar/anatomia & histologia , Dente Pré-Molar/diagnóstico por imagem , Humanos , Dente Molar/anatomia & histologia , Dente Molar/diagnóstico por imagem , Intensificação de Imagem Radiográfica , Radiografia Dentária Digital , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Estatísticas não Paramétricas , Raiz Dentária/anatomia & histologia , Raiz Dentária/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the sensitometric characteristics of 3 intraoral film types processed in an automated roller solution with the characteristics of the films processed in 4 automated nonroller solutions. STUDY DESIGN: Eastman Kodak Ultra-Speed, Flow X-ray EV-57, and Eastman Kodak InSight films were exposed to varying levels of radiation and processed in 1 automated roller solution and in 4 nonroller solutions. Speed and contrast were measured at various density levels and ranges. RESULTS: With the exception of 1 nonroller solution, there was little difference in speed between roller and nonroller processing chemicals at various density levels. Some nonroller solutions were faster than the roller chemicals for all films. Nonroller processing mostly increased contrast compared with roller processing over various ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitometric properties of films processed in automatic nonroller solutions are comparable in many cases to those in roller solutions, sometimes resulting in greater speed and contrast. Different adjustments in exposure factors are required for specific film/processing combinations.